The Far East & the Middle East - "Irresistible objects meet impossible forces"

North Korea, where neither war nor diplomacy offers quick answers - The North Korea dilemma, according to Slate Magazine's Fred Kaplan, offers 4 potential scenarios. His 10/9/06 article poses them thus:

1. "First, Kim Jong-il could churn out more bombs and sell at least some of them to the highest bidders. . .


2. The second possible consequence of a nuclear North Korea is the unleashing of a serious regional arms race. . .


3. Third, it's a fair bet that the Iranians will be closely watching the coming weeks' events. . . who will stop the oil-rich, leverage-loaded, modern-day Persian Empire from treading the same road?


4. (punishing Kim Jong-il) . . . leads to a fourth risky scenario that Sunday's test has set in motion: the danger of escalation and war."

Pushback vs. force - North Korea's explosion of a nuclear weapon has sent the world scrambling for answers about what to do next. Our diplomatic interventions needed to be very skillful, timely, nuanced and well coordinated. But a pending United Nations Chapter 7 sanctions resolution may not get a vote today, unless China and Russia's objections to it are assuaged. Fortunately the U.S. is staying with diplomacy, though we are not in the best position with our current acting ambassador, John Bolton. A New York Times story lays out the proposed UN sanctions resolution, and the story carries a reminder about why Mr. Bolton has not been confirmed as our UN Ambassador. His comment was unnecessarily disrespectful. To quote,

The resolution condemns the test on Oct. 9 as a “flagrant disregard” of Security Council warnings, orders it not to conduct nuclear or missile tests, and urges the North to return to six-nation talks with South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States.
It freezes funds overseas of people or businesses connected to the unconventional weapons programs and bans the sale of luxury goods to North Korea.
“I think the North Korean population has been losing height and weight over the years,” Mr. Bolton said. “Maybe this will be a little diet for Kim Jong-il,” he said, referring to the North Korean dictator.

U.S. language often lacks diplomatic subtlety - Bolton's style is similar to that of his boss. Our current president also uses overly strong rhetoric, laying down markers that are hard from which to move away. These days his favorite word is "unacceptable," according to the Washington Post's R. Jeffrey Smith in his 10/12/06 article. To quote from the piece,

President Bush finds the world around him increasingly "unacceptable."
In speeches, statements and news conferences this year, the president has repeatedly declared a range of problems "unacceptable," including rising health costs, immigrants who live outside the law, North Korea's claimed nuclear test, genocide in Sudan and Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Bush's decision to lay down blunt new markers about the things he deems intolerable comes at an odd time, a phase of his presidency in which all manner of circumstances are not bending to his will: national security setbacks in North Korea and Iraq, a Congress that has shrugged its shoulders at his top domestic initiatives, a favorability rating mired below 40 percent.

"The wreckage of Iraq" is why we were forced into this impossible position - The Financial Times, proves a winner again with its Thursday story exploring a changing U.S. foreign policy. The dead-on headline reads, "White House reverts to cold war containment." I quote from Guy Dinmore's analysis:

Lacking a viable military option in dealing with a nuclear North Korea or Iran, the Bush administration is adopting a cold war-style strategy of containment and deterrence that does not completely close the door on negotiated settlements. . .
– there is a sense that the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive or preventive war is buried in the wreckage of Iraq.
There will be tough bargaining at the UN as the Bush administration seeks the legitimacy afforded by Security Council resolutions to press sanctions.
. . . Interviews with US officials, who asked not to be identified, reveal that the liberation theology that dominated the post-September 11 2001 discourse, notably President George W. Bush’s second inaugural speech last year, has given way to a more pragmatic approach.
. . . A less adventurist foreign policy would be welcomed by the US public, according to a poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Three out of four Americans feel the US is overdoing the job of global policeman, only 17 per cent rank spreading democracy as an important foreign policy goal, while 61 per cent say the war in Iraq has not reduced the threat of terrorism.

The current administration is learning its foreign policy lessons late and extremely painfully. How different it would have been if there had not been a declaration of "war on terror," but a military intervention ending in Afghanistan with the capture of al-Qaeda's key leadership. U.S. foreign policy got terrible off track after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. I remain astonished at the ineptitude of our government. Rewarding the old leadership of Cheney/Rumsfeld, disdaining Colin Powell, buying the neocon fantasies of going it nearly alone to a war of aggression in Iraq, cutting out the United Nations, and now refusing to change direction, has us in a terrible box. It is, as the old saying goes, the immovable object meeting the impossible force.

Tags: bush islam north korea terrorism war news U.S. foreign policy United Nations